How to Write the Results Section of a Scientific Article?

What Should the Results Section Show?

A well-written Results section should allow the reader to understand:

• What the study found
• How the research questions were answered
• Whether the hypotheses were supported
• Which notable relationships or patterns emerged
• Which findings carry the greatest weight in the overall result structure

In What Order Should Results Be Presented?

The order should reflect the study aims and analysis plan. Presenting findings in the same sequence as the research questions usually makes the section much easier to follow.

A common sequence in quantitative research is:

Participant characteristics → Descriptive findings → Preliminary analyses → Main analyses → Hypothesis tests → Additional analyses

For qualitative research, a useful structure may be:

Main themes → Subthemes → Explanatory findings → Participant quotations / examples

1. Introduce the Sample or Study Group

Depending on the study design, characteristics of participants, the sample, or the data source may be presented at the beginning of the section. Report only information that is relevant to understanding the study, rather than extending the section with unnecessary detail.

2. Present Descriptive Findings

Means, standard deviations, medians, frequencies, percentages, and minimum and maximum values may be reported where appropriate. These figures help the reader understand the distribution and general characteristics of the data.

3. Organise Findings Around the Research Questions

Results are easier to follow when they appear in the same order as the research questions or hypotheses. In studies with many analyses, each subsection may be devoted to one question or hypothesis.

4. Report Statistical Results Completely

Statements such as “a significant relationship was found” or “the groups differed” are not sufficient on their own. Depending on the analysis, report the test statistic, degrees of freedom, p value, confidence interval, effect size, or model coefficients as appropriate.

Example: X was positively and significantly correlated with Y (r = .42, p < .001).

Because statistical significance alone does not indicate the magnitude or practical relevance of a finding, effect sizes and confidence intervals should also be reported when suitable.

5. State the Outcome of Each Hypothesis Clearly

Where hypotheses were specified, indicate clearly whether the findings support them.

Example: Digital leadership positively predicted digital transformation. This finding supports H1.

A hypothesis that is not supported is not a failed result. Non-supporting and unexpected findings remain part of the scientific record and should be reported with the same transparency.

6. Use Tables and Figures Selectively

Tables and figures are particularly useful when many numerical values must be presented. Avoid repeating every value from a table in the text.

The prose should draw attention to the result or pattern that matters most and direct the reader to the table or figure for detailed values.

Avoid: Repeating every mean, standard deviation, and p value from the table in sentence form.

Prefer: Highlighting the important difference or association and referring readers to the table for detail.

7. Present Qualitative Findings Through Themes and Patterns

Qualitative Results sections are commonly organised around themes, categories, or patterns identified during analysis.

Each main theme may be presented under a separate subheading, explained in relation to the research question, and supported with participant quotations where useful.

Quotations should support the analytic point rather than replace the analysis itself. Appropriate codes or pseudonyms should be used to protect participant identities.

Theme → Explanation → Subtheme / pattern → Supporting quotation → Brief concluding statement

8. Structure Findings in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews should report the study selection process, characteristics of included studies, quality or risk-of-bias assessments, and synthesis results in a transparent sequence.

Meta-analyses should report effect estimates, confidence intervals, heterogeneity statistics, and subgroup or sensitivity analyses when relevant. A suitable flow diagram can also help readers follow the study selection process.

9. Do Not Hide Unexpected or Non-significant Findings

Findings that do not support the hypotheses, do not reach statistical significance, or run counter to expectations should still be reported. Selective reporting of only favourable results weakens the integrity of the study.

What Is the Difference Between Results and Discussion?

Results show what was found.

Discussion explains what those findings mean, why they may have occurred, and how they relate to previous research.

For example, “X was positively associated with Y” belongs in Results. Explaining why that association may exist or why it differs from earlier studies belongs in Discussion.

Common Problems in Results Sections

• Interpreting or discussing findings instead of reporting them
• Repeating every table value in the text
• Reporting only statistically significant findings
• Including analyses unrelated to the research questions
• Reporting test results incompletely
• Treating the p value as the sole measure of scientific importance
• Leaving tables and figures unexplained in the text
• Stating hypothesis outcomes ambiguously
• Presenting qualitative themes only through quotations
• Reporting findings in a scattered order unrelated to the study aims

A Practical Writing Sequence

For each research question or main analysis, the following sequence is often useful:

Research question / analysis → Result → Necessary statistical evidence → Reference to table or figure

For qualitative research:

Theme → Explanation → Evidence / participant quotation → Concluding statement

Before Submission, Check the Following

• Are the findings presented in the same logical order as the research questions?
• Are the important results stated clearly?
• Are the necessary statistical values complete?
• Are tables and figures explained in the text?
• Is information from tables being repeated unnecessarily?
• Are unsupported hypotheses also reported?
• Are qualitative themes supported with sufficient evidence?
• Does the Results section avoid unnecessary interpretation or literature comparison?